Caporegime
Straw man.
Unfortunately Russia doesn't want one.
Sure, but for certain countries on this planet that would actually be a considerable leap forward in their scientific and demographic development.
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
Straw man.
Unfortunately Russia doesn't want one.
Sure, but for certain countries on this planet that would actually be a considerable leap forward in their scientific and demographic development.
All guns and no balls. So sad.
Why are you guys making these types of posts? Not everything is an argument or a personal attack. Stop making these types of passive of aggressive posts.
Soldato
Because you are the one that loves to throw accusations of male posters not being "manly". Its not rocket science that this would get thrown back at you when the chips are down and you are scared of the big bad bully.
Soldato
Russia has no business there.
That’s the principle NATO is defending. And it’s crucial to the future peace of Europe.
Last edited:
Nuclear war isn't the chips being down, it's everyone you've ever known being killed in the worst possible way you can imagine, people being vapourised if they're lucky or dying from prolonged burns and cancer, while starving and breathing in smoke with radioactive particles in. It would be hell for everyone. You're basically just being ignorant about the chances of it happening.
Last edited:
So let's just appease the tyrant dictator and hope it works out for the best?
I would say that is extremely ignorant. and stupid. Mostly stupid.
Tell us, what solution do you have to the issue that doesn't involve the rest of Europe just looking the other way like a bunch of cowards?
Last edited:
Associate
......
Last edited:
Soldato
This is the same appeasement debate Europe faced 80/90 years ago. It’s a false choice.
For those that think this isn’t worth the fight now, I would ask how they see events developing over the next 5, 10, 15 years if we follow a different path?
For those that think this isn’t worth the fight now, I would ask how they see events developing over the next 5, 10, 15 years if we follow a different path?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,612
In regards to Putin's speech tomorrow
Associate
It's not just about Ukraine and you really need to be pretty stupid to think it is.
Bottom line is Russia really did think it would be a 3 day war, all they had to do was show up in Kviv and the Ukrainians would run in fear. Putin had no bloody clue what was about to happen.
Anyway after Ukraine cowered in fear or the Russian might of Putin, he was then going after Moldova, Finland, Sweden, all non Nato countries in the area to be precise
So yes this war affects us all, the whole of Eastern Europe would have been as unstable as the old days and a new cold war would very much be on right if Ukraine didn't stop them in their tracks.
Ukraine deserve our help, they kept the wolf from our door.
It's actually pretty lucky that Putin didn't actually realise his army was actually inept, he really did believe in his super power status
Soldato
You don't wait for the cancer to spread before you opt for surgery.
Nuclear weapons are simple - you use them, people annihilate you because you are a threat that is willing to use nuclear weapons. No ifs, no buts.
Soldato
What a load of crock. No concept in the real world at all with any of what is written here. To suggest there is no business there for EU is daft.
Soldato
He doesn't have one. People who think peace is the answer never seem to factor that Ukraine doesn't want peace with Russia in its borders and who can blame them. They want to win this war and be done with it. Also Russia doesn't want peace either and you could never trust them to stick to any agreement that was made.
Funding Ukraine in this war is actually cheap as chips for what we are getting, Russia will be a shadow of what it was before the war militarily and we now know it was a shadow of what we thought it was to begin with. We won't need to worry about it for a long time to come. For a few 10s of $b that is cheap.
Putin isn't launching nukes, its an empty threat used by a bully to try and intimidate people and for some it works. MAD is as relevant today as it was throughout the cold war. He isn't turning Russia into a nuclear wasteland. He'll find a way to say he won and slink off and lick his wounds. At the very worst he might leave Ukraine and nuke Kiev and claim victory and Russia would be an outcast for a generation, even China and India would want nothing to do with them, they would be the North Korea of Eurasia.
Last edited:
Associate
Err has Luka gone funny in the head? He better vet those people before he arms the general population as many of them don't exactly like him much! Or is he beefing things up for when Russia come after him?
I explained why this is a dangerous falsehood earlier in the thread, but for anyone interested in why it's wrong I'll copypasta the post in spoiler tags:
I don't mean to be rude here but this just isn't wrong it's very naïve.
A lot of people in this thread seem to fail to understand that the idea/concept of nuclear weapons (and the associated taboos) is completely different in the west to the rest of the world. Here in the west when most of us think of nuclear weapons we tend to think of an enormous fireball/mushroom cloud vaporising a city/island and oh-my-god the humanity, but those strategic nuclear weapons are not the only type of nuclear weapon, there are also tactical nukes. Tactical nukes are significantly smaller, I.E a nuclear tipped torpedo capable of eradicating a whole battleship/carrier with one hit, a nuclear SAM capable of downing an entire bomber formation, a nuclear tipped artillery shell capable of doing damage comparable to carpet bombing, or even a precision missile capable of destroying a fortified bunker/building in one hit.
For us the two get lumped together and we generally think the use of any nuclear weapons is an unthinkable taboo, however in the former USSR and China (and NK) there is a much stronger mental detachment between strategic and tactical weapons. In these states using these weapons has much less stigma/taboo with military leaders and the public, and in some cases it's even seen as pragmatic (I.E if a tactical nuke is almost as good as sending bombers but you don't have the air superiority to send bombers it's a cost saver). It's worth noting that even in the west the use of tactical nukes is much less unpopular with generals/politicians than it is with the public, hell the entire reason the USA developed the MOAB thermobaric vacuum bomb was because they wanted the functional ability to drop tactical nukes the middle east without any of the political fallout (no pun intended) using actual tactical nukes would generate. Russia of course created their own more powerful version of the MOAB (Called the FOAB), which of course they couldn't afford to build in great numbers. However they can't reliably use their FOABs against Ukraine as they have to be dropped from bombers and if they could send in bombers they would be bombing and there would be no need for them to consider the use of tactical nukes, however as mentioned above when bombing would see your bombers shot down then TNs become much more attractive from both a financial and effectiveness POV.
Many older posters may remember the infamous apocalyptic TV Movie "Threads" from the 80s? In that the thing that turned a tense situation into WW3 was when NATO sent B-52 bombers to hit a Soviet base in Iran and the Soviets defended the base with a nuclear tipped anti-air missile. It was and still is a very real example of how the differing western//non-western approaches to TNs can result in the west being surprised by others willingness to use them (for reference all of the USSRs cold war battle plans involved TNs, all of them).
A lot of people in this thread seem to fail to understand that the idea/concept of nuclear weapons (and the associated taboos) is completely different in the west to the rest of the world. Here in the west when most of us think of nuclear weapons we tend to think of an enormous fireball/mushroom cloud vaporising a city/island and oh-my-god the humanity, but those strategic nuclear weapons are not the only type of nuclear weapon, there are also tactical nukes. Tactical nukes are significantly smaller, I.E a nuclear tipped torpedo capable of eradicating a whole battleship/carrier with one hit, a nuclear SAM capable of downing an entire bomber formation, a nuclear tipped artillery shell capable of doing damage comparable to carpet bombing, or even a precision missile capable of destroying a fortified bunker/building in one hit.
For us the two get lumped together and we generally think the use of any nuclear weapons is an unthinkable taboo, however in the former USSR and China (and NK) there is a much stronger mental detachment between strategic and tactical weapons. In these states using these weapons has much less stigma/taboo with military leaders and the public, and in some cases it's even seen as pragmatic (I.E if a tactical nuke is almost as good as sending bombers but you don't have the air superiority to send bombers it's a cost saver). It's worth noting that even in the west the use of tactical nukes is much less unpopular with generals/politicians than it is with the public, hell the entire reason the USA developed the MOAB thermobaric vacuum bomb was because they wanted the functional ability to drop tactical nukes the middle east without any of the political fallout (no pun intended) using actual tactical nukes would generate. Russia of course created their own more powerful version of the MOAB (Called the FOAB), which of course they couldn't afford to build in great numbers. However they can't reliably use their FOABs against Ukraine as they have to be dropped from bombers and if they could send in bombers they would be bombing and there would be no need for them to consider the use of tactical nukes, however as mentioned above when bombing would see your bombers shot down then TNs become much more attractive from both a financial and effectiveness POV.
Many older posters may remember the infamous apocalyptic TV Movie "Threads" from the 80s? In that the thing that turned a tense situation into WW3 was when NATO sent B-52 bombers to hit a Soviet base in Iran and the Soviets defended the base with a nuclear tipped anti-air missile. It was and still is a very real example of how the differing western//non-western approaches to TNs can result in the west being surprised by others willingness to use them (for reference all of the USSRs cold war battle plans involved TNs, all of them).
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,349
In this instance, a nuke is a nuke, regardless of size and effect. Their use would constitute a complete change in the scope and direction of this war, and elicit pretty much the same response from almost every other country on the planet.
Personally, I would expect the US to already have a plan utilising the B2 fleet to overfly every known strategic location of the Russian military in Ukraine with the GPS coordinates programmed in to individual weapons for autonomous release and guidance.
They’d be wiped off the map in a single night.
Personally, I would expect the US to already have a plan utilising the B2 fleet to overfly every known strategic location of the Russian military in Ukraine with the GPS coordinates programmed in to individual weapons for autonomous release and guidance.
They’d be wiped off the map in a single night.
- Status